Imagine:
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) and its ground crews, responsible for managing the missile and rocket defense systems, have decided to go on strike. Their demands are predictable: they seek improved daily conditions. They're demanding top-of-the-line Beauty Rest mattresses, a daily serving of Ben & Jerry's ice cream at 4 p.m sharp. (though I personally can't stand that brand, their founders or their products), and a 45-minute break every three hours, plus 15-minute bathroom breaks as needed. After all, these IAF pilots and the ground crews are the individuals safeguarding Israel during its struggle for survival, and they believe they deserve special treatment or else.
If this were real, the entire country could be wiped out. But, thank God, it’s not—or at least, not quite. The real story comprises the Histadrut Israeli Labor Union. Recently, it decided to go on strike, beginning with its Teachers Union shutting down all high schools in Israel because the government failed to meet all of their demands. This is, quite frankly, the definition of chutzpah and ingratitude.
Striking in the midst of a war for survival, while others are on duty and reserve duty, sacrificing their livelihoods, jeopardizing their families' futures, and even losing their lives to defend those who dare to strike, is nothing short of outrageous, selfish and hypocritical.
Can you Imagine again?
What would happen if the latest raucous anti-government protest in Tel Aviv had brought about a significant shift? What if under pressure from the demonstrators, Netanyahu would concede to Hamas’s demands in an effort to secure a lasting ceasefire. He would agree to withdraw from the Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors, pull Israeli troops out of the Strip. In return, Hamas would commit to releasing five live hostages each week, while Israel would agree to release 1,500 terrorists weekly. The agreement would be celebrated by the Israeli anti-government demonstrators, Hamas, and their supporters (virtually everyone else) in Gaza, as well as by Biden, Kamala, and the rest of the U.S. administration. In Detroit, the town hall would be adorned with the colors of the Hamas flag—red, black, white, and green—while the crowded square would echo with chants of "Allahu Akbar." And “Death to Israel”. Several Israeli and American flags would be burned for effect.
Two weeks would pass, and the agreement would appear to be holding. Kamala Harris would deliver an emotional speech, reading from the teleprompter what her handlers had written, in which she would claim her own personal victory. She would declare that she had been the driving force behind the historic agreement, revealing that she had warned Netanyahu that if he didn’t concede to Hamas’s demands, she would impose a military equipment embargo on Israel when she became president. As a proof, she would present the latest polling results, showing a 68% approval ratings while Trump would be falling way behind.
And then, Hamas, would learn from recent experience that executing hostages just before their potential release or rescue fuels intense debate within Israel, where a loud and raucous portion of the population would be blaming Netanyahu rather than the true low-life savages responsible for these deaths. They would conclude that this internal pressure on the prime minister to yield to Hamas’s demands could play a crucial role in their negotiation strategy by dividing the Israeli public into Netanyahu supporters on one side and those they could manipulate on the other.
Recognizing the urgency in the so-called "peace" process, the execution of the 6 hostages created, Hamas would decide to repeat their "successful" strategy. They would plan to stage another execution on camera, mimicking ISIS-style beheadings, and blame Israel for allegedly violating the agreement through continued drone and aircraft surveillance over Gaza. Their goal would embolden the provocation of Netanyahu's critics—Hamas’s unwitting allies—into increasing pressure on him to stop intelligence operations in Gaza. With another dead hostage, Hamas would believe that they would gain even more leverage, all due to help from their Israeli useful idiots. They would also realize that Netanyahu's critics would inadvertently aid Hamas’s long-term goal: repeating the October 7 massacre in the future, once they had rebuilt their capabilities with the help of those willing to pursue peace at any cost.
But, thank God, the scenario above is just a nightmare. Once you wake up, it disappears. But it still nags...
It is clear that the protesters in Israel are the reason Hamas feels confident that their demands and their final goal of defeating the Jewish state down the road, will come true. It is clear that, ignoring the diehards who know what they are doing and don't care, many Israelis are naïve as they miscalculate and misunderstand that their actions contribute to the exact opposite of what they wish for. They cut the branch they sit on.
The miscalculation and lack of common sense has been reflected lately by Gallant, the defense minister, who decided to go on X (Twitter) and critique Netanyahu by doing exactly what Fredo, Michael Corleone’s older brother, did in the story below.
In The Godfather, during a meeting in Las Vegas where Michael Corleone was negotiating to buy out Moe Greene’s casino interests, Fredo Corleone made the critical mistake of publicly disagreeing with Michael. Fredo tried to defend Moe Greene, saying, "Moe didn't ask for help. I was just... takin' care of him," which inadvertently supported Greene's position against Michael.
Michael's reaction was immediate and stern. He coldly reprimanded Fredo in front of everyone, exposing the danger in Fredo's behavior. Moe Greene must have realized that Fredo was on his side, which could have given him the idea that if Michael were eliminated and Fredo took over the Corleone family, Greene could gain the upper hand. This scenario mirrors Gallant's actions, which weakened Israel's resolve and negotiating position, encouraging Hamas to escalate their demands because they sensed support from his side.
Ministers' disagreements with the prime minister should be handled privately. It's crucial to show unity when going public to prevent adversaries from taking advantage. However, Gallant chose to voice his dissent on the most widely used public platform. Unfortunately, I have now lost respect and confidence in Gallant’s judgment.
In business, it's true that when you're desperate and facing a problem, you might find that your suppliers suddenly go silent, reluctant to offer help. But when you're successful and don't need assistance, everyone seems eager to chip in. Israelis don't seem to grasp this simple truth. The more pressure they put on the prime minister to yield to Hamas’s demands, the more extreme Hamas’s demands become.
Public demonstrations and hostility towards Netanyahu not only disrupt life in Israel and increase the suffering of others, but they also backfire by emboldening Hamas, strengthening Israel’s adversaries' negative perceptions of the Jewish state, and undermining efforts to bring the war to a successful conclusion.
